Dave "no intellectual integrity" Bartosiewicz has a new video, Do Mormons Believe "Is Jesus God in Flesh"? As always, Bartosiewicz embarrasses himself. Let me make a few notes--
Firstly, one should note that the title comes from 1 Tim 3:16 (KJV). However, Dave, due to his documented ignorance of biblical scholarship, is unaware that this is a later corruption of the text.
It is universally accepted, outside the King James Only movement, that 1 Tim 3:16 should read “he who,” not “God.” The earliest manuscripts of this verse reads ος “he who,” not θς, an abbreviation (nomina sacra) of θεος, the Greek word for “God,” something that even conservative New Testament scholars admit (e.g. Philip Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary [Tyndale House Publishers, 2008]).
It is also generally accepted this was a theological corruption by proto-Orthodox scribes to counter Docetism, an early Christological heresy that stated that, while appearing to be human, Jesus was not truly human but “only” divine,” a heresy condemned in the New Testament itself (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). Such scribes changed the omicron (o) to a theta (θ) to support their Christology that God (the Son) became truly human (or “flesh” [Greek: σαρξ]). For a full-length discussion of this and other variants, see Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1993).
One should note the following from the NET Bible, produced by Evangelical Protestants who, like Thompson, accept the Trinity dogma:
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 vgms) read θεός (theos, "God") for ὅς (hos, "who"). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other MSS tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few MSS have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός.On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, "which"), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? "Who" is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 1Ti 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author's style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phi 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: θ-̰σ vs. οσ. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the MSS it came in contact with (including MSS already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a "correction" of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musterion, "mystery"). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the "Western" text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, "no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός." Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, "Christ") or κύριος (kurios, "Lord"), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity.
One appreciates the intellectual integrity of the authors of the above note; would that most critics of the Restored Gospel would follow their more scholarly co-religionists. Sadly, this is reflective of the lack of meaningful exegesis and scholarship in Bartosiewicz's videos.
Furthermore, he presents a false dilemma (a common logical fallacy)--either Jesus was born "spiritually" and is not eternal or Jesus is deity and is eternal. Ignorant Evangelicals who know even less than Bartosiewicz about "Mormonism" (as difficult as such is to imagine) may buy that hook, line, and sinker. In reality, however, Bartosiewicz is just being his usual deceptive self.
In a poorly-researched anti-Mormon book from a Reformed author, we read the following assertion:
The Mormons embrace the heresy of Arias [sic]. They see Christ as a created being. (Richard E. Carroll, Mormonism and the Bible [Mustang, Okla.: Tate Publishing, 2015], 65).
This is false on a number of levels.
Arianism is the theology that states that, while Christ pre-existed, he did not pre-exist eternally; instead, he came into existence ex nihilo prior to the Genesis creation. There are a number of groups that have an Arian Christology, most notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses though they add an extra “twist” on this theology by identifying the pre-mortal Jesus as the archangel Michael.
With respect to Latter-day Saint belief, it is a distinct teaching of LDS Christology that Jesus has eternally existed, His nature being that of an intelligence, with all the attributes inherent within intelligence (cf. Abraham 3; D&C 93). There is no “creation” (ex nihilo) of Jesus, as Arianism teaches. While probably a post-Joseph Smith concept, “spirit birth” is wherein an intelligence is clothed upon with a spirit body, analogous to our spirit being clothed upon with a mortal physical body; if Carroll believes that “spirit birth” is supportive of Arianism, he would have to conclude that the Incarnation is also “Arian,” both of which are far-fetched and ignorant of the theology of Arius et al.
Furthermore, Carroll, as a Trinitarian, does believe that “Jesus” was created. In Trinitarian Christology, “Jesus” is a single person with two natures and two wills, a la the Hypostatic Union, as defined at Chalcedon in AD 451. The human nature and will of Jesus did not actually pre-exist the Incarnation. Indeed, many Trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that one cannot speak of “Jesus pre-existing unless pre-existence is normative of what it means to be “human.” Much work has been done in recent years in what is called, “Spirit Christology,” focusing on what precedes “Jesus”—the Word in John 1—as God. What follows are two quotes from leading studies on this issue, and how only holding that all humans, not just Jesus, pre-existing can one speak of the “pre-existence of Jesus.”
The first comes from Bernard Byrne, "Christ's Pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology," Theological Studies, June 1997, 58/2:
By the same token, it is important to stress that in speaking of pre-existence, one is not speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus Christ did not personally pre-exist as Jesus. Hence one ought not to speak of a pre-existence of Jesus. Even to use the customary expression of the pre-existence of Christ can be misleading since the word "Christ" in its original meaning simply designates the Jewish Messiah, a figure never thought of as pre-existent in any personal sense. But in view of the Christian application of "Christ" to Jesus, virtually as a proper name and in a way going beyond his historical earthly existence, it is appropriate to discuss the issue in terms of the pre-existence of Christ, provided one intended thereby to designate simply the subject who came to historical human existence as Jesus, without any connotation that he pre-existed as a human being.
The second comes from Roger Haight, "The Case for Spirit Christology," Theological Studies, June 1992, 53/2 (emphasis added)
And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a pre-existence of Jesus . . . But one cannot think in terms of the pre-existence of Jesus; what is pre-existent to Jesus is God, and the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot pre-exist creation. One may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict pre-existence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubtantiality with us, unless we too were pre-existent.
Of course, “Mormonism” answers this “problem” as we believe everyone had personal pre-existence, not just Jesus (see here for a discussion). Furthermore, there is no doctrine creatio ex nihilo in LDS theology to begin with, so an important core of Arianism is already precluded by LDS theology.
The charge that the LDS Church teaches Arianism, however, only reflects ignorance of (1) Arianism and (2) Latter-day Saint theology.